Cingular Wireless - signed up for 12 month contract - incorrectly told contract is actually for 24 months

# 11 for July 16, 2003

Complaints.com received the following on July 15, 2003:

From:

RE: Cingular Wireless - signed up for 12 month contract - incorrectly told contract is actually for 24 months

CINGULAR WIRELESS misleading contract.

BREACHED OF CONTRACT May 4, 2002, purchased a Nokia phone with 12 months contract (copy was fax more than 5x to CINGULAR WIRELESS). This year on May 2003, I called to confirm that account will be close the same month. I was told contract was for 24 months. As I mentioned, this contract was fax to Cingular Wireless. June 12, 2003, contacted the company again to ask why we are still being billed.

We were asked to fax another copy so they can review and was told that someone will contact us to confirm. July 6, knowing they will not get hold of us, we went directly to the place where we purchased phone and signed contract and they just told us to call Service Department again.

As of July 7, 2003 no response. Called at this date and was on hold for over 35 minutes and phone was hung up on me. Called again talked with several reps and after 30 minutes of waiting and transferred around, finally a rep by the name of Anna said to fax the copy of that contract (again) which she got and told us that the fees will be waived as of July 7, 2003 and account is to be closed. July 14, 2003 received another bill from collections department.

Called July 15, 2003 and asked for explanation. Rep said that specific fee were for the June & partial July billing. I have paid this account in the amount of $133.99 which was not supposed to exist since contract were supposed to be closed in May 2003. We were told fee is to be waived but lied to us. Now they said that they cannot remove that balance because it's company policy. This company has ripped us off. It took them "seconds" to make the mistake in their computer by entering 24 instead of 12 months and it has taken us 2 months to try to solve the problem. As of today July 15, 2003 they have not fixed the problem and we ended up paying $133.99. This is not the type of service we expected. All of our time & effort was wasted. I do not feel that we should have to go through what we did. This could happen to anyone. Ray Pacio

Fresno, CALIFORNIA